First part
T |
his is the continuation of the replies to the lies told by a blogger named Ajit Vadakayil about Sikhism. In the first part, we discussed the very basic things and the ideology of the writer behind the article, and how claiming something without giving any proof is wrong and to some extent criminal too. But this is the World of Internet, where so many propaganda websites/blogs will be there without giving any evidence. Sometimes it’s very easy to check if it’s a lie or truth. Does the writer give any reference to a book if talking about history? Can the book be trusted? No; he is lying and has a made-up story ready to tell. Yes; he is telling the truth because he’s something to show (conclusion and observation both are different things), not just words.
We’ve also discussed a fake story of Ramayana that how it’s not logical to bring forward something that has no base.
I want to say it again about 1469 and 1699: 1469 was the year of the birth of Guru Nanak Dev ji and starting of Sikhism; 1699 was the year of the creation of the Khalsa Panth.
4. ‘You cannot "paper convert" any of the first 9 gurus into Sikhism -- before the 10th Guru Gobind Singh had his amrit chakna ceremony for his Panj Piaras into Sikhism and created the 5K Sikh religion.’ – Deductive reasoning is a good method to convince someone. The blogger writes a story of a boxer and then tries to compare that with the Sikh Gurus and comes to a conclusion. Ta dah!
The very basic thing from where he started writing is false. If the base of a story is false, you can’t develop a good story, unless people who are reading don’t have any brains.
In the beginning, he says ‘Before 1699 there was NO Sikhism at all’ and ‘Guru Gobind Singh started Sikhism on the Baisakhi day of 1699.’ After this he concluded that the first nine Sikh Gurus were Hindu. The very first notion is wrong and that is that Sikhism was started in 1699. 1699 was the year of the creation of the Khalsa Panth. A person who doesn’t know what happened when cannot give the right story to the readers. And after writing this he even has the audacity and thinks that the readers are so foolish, so he says ‘Capt Ajit Vadakayil can think crystal clear.’
Crystal clear thinking is not based on wrong information.
Anyways, let’s create a fake story here about a tribe.
Evolution happened. It’s the truth. And the first human who was evolved was from a tribe name Jukansa. It was the name of their religion too. Jukansa was the oldest religion of the world, older than all the known religions. It had the area of the whole Asia. They lived there peacefully and later some invaders showed up from the seaside. In their holy book it’s said that Hinska, the god of Power, helped the enemies to annihilate Jukansa.
They were murdered so brutally that not even one of them was left alive. Their places were burned down and scriptures and belongings were used by the enemies. All the other tribes came from the enemies.
All the people that we see in these days, especially in Asia, are the descendants of the enemies.
Now, think of a blogger having his story based on Jukansa tribe and says ‘we all are the sons and daughters of the enemies’, without checking if the story of the Jukansa tribe is correct or not.
Same is what Ajit Vadakayil did on his blog. He first said that the first nine Sikh Gurus were Hindu, and then said there was no Sikhism before 1699, then came to a conclusion that ‘You cannot "paper convert" any of the first 9 gurus into Sikhism.’
Simple and easy. How easy it’s to debunk this!
As we are going to discuss more about religions on this series of posts, let’s first discuss what we are going to talk about.
‘Religion’, a word, if we go with the definition of the dictionary, it will say ‘The belief in God’ or ‘A system of beliefs and group of rules to worship God.’ But the definition that I like here is ‘A set of rules to reach God or to achieve Oneness.’
A religion is not a person but something that you follow, can be rules. Some people have not understood it so far that’s why they say a religion comes from a religion, which doesn’t hold any truth. The ancestors of someone to have a different set of beliefs than the person today makes sense somewhat. But no religion comes from another religion. It’s not some personnel thing but a set of rules that can be followed.
We call a person to be religious if and only if he follows the rules of the religion, and that can be totally wrong according to the morality of many people around the world. But it is the truth. Even if a religion says roam naked and have sex with the women that you meet every day, that’s also a religion according to those who follow it, but our conscience might not allow us to do so.
If a person is not following the set of rules defined by the religion or the person who started the religion, then he can’t be said to follow or belong to that religion. It’s just the very basic thing in religion if we have the understanding of it. Following are the points that I want to highlight here:
1. No religion comes from a religion.
2. A religion is a set of rules that a person follows.
3. A person who doesn’t follow the rules of the religion can’t be said to follow the religion or belong to the religion.
4. Religion is not a person-thing but a set of rules.
Remember the above-mentioned points, as we might refer them while having the discussion on the claims of the blogger.
5. ‘Their Hindu ancestors stood up arms ONLY to protect their motherland from the rampaging Muslim invaders.’ – The base of the story is wrong, which always is of any lie, and then he is concluding something with the same lie and adding more lies by capitalizing ‘only.’
This is what we discussed in the last article that how Muslims are getting targeted by saying they were ‘invaders.’
Before debunking this claim of his, let’s talk about religion once more, but now about the ‘land’ which is attached to a religion.
Indian religion, Nepali religion, Chinese religion, or Pakistani religion, these words don’t make any sense. Sometimes we want to associate a religion to a particular land. It’ll make more sense if we say the religion was started on a particular land. But saying that a religion belongs to a land is somewhat idiotic. History of a religion can be there on a land, but a religion can’t be associated with a land.
This is what Ajit Vadakayil is doing. Saying that Sikhism was there to protect a land from invaders! Seriously? Even the people who are living in India were invaders at some time. Aryan race was not on the land of India from the beginning, this is a fact. But some person with a small brain will claim that the Aryan race was on the land of India from the beginning. Slow clapping!
Even in the first part, we discussed how some people are trying to tell Sikhs that they should also not have polite talks with Muslims as they were the reason behind the death of two Sikh Gurus. They want Sikhs to be as dumb as they are. Here, I am not talking about all the Hindus, no. So many good Hindus are there in the world, but there are some dumb too, same is true for Sikhs and Muslims and Christians and other religions. Because they don’t know the religion and history, so they start preaching according to their own tiny brains.
The Sikh wars or battles were against injustice, not against a particular community. There are stories of Akbar that how he gave so much land to Guru Sahibaan to spread the religion, and in Goindwal Sahib he came to the gurdwara sahib and sat among the Sikh sangat to eat langar. If guru sahib didn’t discriminate then, why should we?
But, yes, when there was killing of innocents, that was condemned by Guru Sahibaans.
We’ll talk about the battles of Guru Sahibaans in details at some other time of the series when Ajit Vadakayil talks about it, and will show that Guru Sahibaans never battled against someone who is ruling. The battles were there when the Mughals captured an opportunity to attack the Sikhs, then the Sikhs retaliated. It’s not because they were Muslims. Attacking a person just because he is from a different religion seems like the mentality of a sick person who needs a shrink.
6. ‘Desh bhakt Sikhs must know that all their ten gurus were born Khatri Hindus.’ – This is another fallacy. A person is not born as a religious person, this is what we discussed above. See the second point.
A baby who is born now doesn’t have any religion unless he practises something. There was a very good movie named ‘PK.’ There when PK (Aamir Khan) comes to know that there is something called ‘religion’ that can let you reach to God, he becomes very happy. But as he’s an alien, he doesn’t know what his religion is and how to check a person belongs to which religion.
So he goes to a hospital, picks up a baby and checks if there is any kind of mark on the body of the baby to know he belongs to which religion. There was nothing.
Sometimes movies can teach us so many things.
No person was born as a religious person. He adopts something, and then becomes religious.
In his article, we are going to see fallacy after fallacy, nothing more. But will give all the details that I can give because many young Sikhs are not reading gurbani and listen to gur-itehaas, but read online content and believe that. So, this whole blog is for them to get to know their true history, and don’t read something written by an eight-year-old boy who doesn’t have a sketch book.
He is saying ‘all their ten gurus’, we read the first article and saw some verses from Guru Granth Sahib ji that how Guru Nanak Dev ji, the first Sikh Guru, didn’t even wear a janeu at a very young age, the very basic thing that is done by Hindus to young boys, and calling Guru Nanak Dev ji a Hindu will be a laughable thing. But some ignorant people will do that to just satisfy their low level of understanding of Sikhism.
7. ‘This name was conferred by Guru Gobind Singh along with a sword of honour.’ – Here Ajit Vadakayil is talking about Baba Banda Singh bahadur that Guru Gobind Singh ji met him at Nanded.
But the shocking thing here is that he’s been calling Baba Banda Singh bahadur a Hindu and saying all the victories of his were because he’s a Hindu. On the other hand, he is saying that the name ‘Baba Banda Singh’ was given by Guru Gobind Singh ji.
Now, a person who knows even a little bit of history, or has been in Punjab and read some 10th class history books, knows that Sikhs didn’t have the name ‘Singh’ before 1699. It’s after the creation of the Khalsa Panth when Sikhs started having names with ‘Singh’ and ‘Kaur.’
Later in the article, he will claim that Baba Banda Singh bahadur didn’t take amrit and he’s still a Hindu. The problem with that theory is that if you are saying, on one hand, that the name ‘Baba Banda Singh’ was given by Guru Gobind Singh ji and he didn’t take amrit, then there wouldn’t have been ‘Singh’ word after the name. (These days all the Sikhs are having the last name as ‘Singh’ and ‘Kaur’, in the earlier times only those people had the name with Singh or Kaur who took amrit.)
We will discuss this later in more details from the sources, not just believe in some made-up stories of an eight-year-old boy.
8. ‘Some of these historians are just naïve with no perception or ability to connect the dots’ – Here the word ‘historians’ is used for Sikhs. To connect the dots first, you have to have a surface and then you should really know which dots you need to connect. Just using the name ‘Rothschild’ and justifying the story is not how you connect the dots.
Before moving on and talk more on anything else, first let’s understand the word ‘Rothschild.’ The Rothschild Family is pointed out in enormous illegal activities happening in the world. Some even say that the Word War I and II were influenced by the Rothschild Family.
You can Google the word and read all the stories, you can even believe that if you want to. But while writing this blog here, I really want to tell that if there is something bad happening or ever happened in the world, Ajit Vadakayil will point the finger at Rothschild because he doesn’t seem to have any evidence of what he is claiming. By saying this, I am not concluding that the Rothschild Family is clean, no. They might have their own share of doing bad things.
Whenever there are some references or history that says Sikhs are different than Hindus, our eight-year-old boy will come forward to say that it’s changed by Rothschild. Phew! I wish I had other good stories to read, this whole fictional article of Ajit Vadakayil is so anti-Sikh, egotistical, sham, and illogical that people should have captured its unauthenticity quickly. They did it other way around though.
Sikhs who know history and know the meaning of gurbani understood it at once; but those who are still enjoying the 21st century world by assuming everything on the web is true, or if even the deductive reasoning makes some sense for the time being, haven’t quite gotten into the details of his article.
We really need to ask ourselves especially when we read history. History is a tricky thing and can be moulded into any way. Like we had the example of a fake story from Ramayana. There the characters were real, but the incident was fake, and if it’s on the web and people are talking about that story, many of them will believe that because I used the word ‘British.’
9. ‘The same SECULAR duo was actively involved in passing the Anand Marriage act in 23rd May 2012. The Nirankari Conference in Rawalpindi in March 1855 introduced Anand Marriage act , which was drafted by Rothschild’ – Anand Marriage act was passed in 2012 in India, earlier Sikhs used to register their marriages under the Hindu Act (or something).
In the constitution of India, Sikhs are still referred to be part of Hindus and so many times protests erupted in Punjab for that. But the Anand Marriage act was a first victory and assurance that Sikhs would change that part of the constitution too which says Sikhs are Hindus.
Some people with tiny brains come with some logic that Sikhs were referred as Hindus because it’s to unite all of the Indians. Slow clapping! Bullshit logic.
Now come to the word ‘Rothschild’ again. Before writing this line, he referred few things how Rothschild is wrong and then put the word here to hold the attention of the readers. This is how the article of his started with word like ‘traitors.’ Because this is the only way of separating the people and convince them again. I read a very good quote few days back:
“It stared politicians dividing the people with ‘us vs them.’ It started with intolerance and hate speech and when people stopped caring, became desensitised mindlessly obedient and turned a blind eye.”
The same thing is here. First tell how Rothschild is bad, then bring forward an incident, end with Rothschild. Simple. So, people will believe Rothschild is bad, everything that he did was bad (if he ever did, like in this Anand Marriage Act example). Ta dah!
Even just for the sake of the argument, if we believe that the Anand Marriage Act was drafted by Rothschild, why should we have a problem with it?
I gave this example in the video too that if Rothschild says 2+2=4, should we stop believing it just because he said it? Seriously?
Even if an alien comes from Mars and says Sikhs are different than Hindus, why should we have any problem with it? Problem should be for those who say Sikhs are Hindus, like Ajit Vadakayil. His whole article is to prove that Sikhs are Hindus, so he’d to make up some stories to convince the readers.
But the captain is different. He forgets what he’s written, maybe he is old and somewhat insane and perhaps suffering from schizophrenia, that’s why there are so many contradictions in his article. Will discuss that at the end of the series.
“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.”
10. ‘In 1857 later Rothschild stopped all pretenses of being a trader and took over India with Sikh help.’ – It needs so much of understanding to know the truth. Will do it later but say few things here.
The Sikh Empire was the last empire that was conquered by the British. That being said, if apart from Punjab everything was under the British after the Anglo-Indian wars were won/lost by them, how Rothschild took over India with the help of Sikhs? (Or are you saying that Sikhs are the bravest people who could defeat the whole nation? 😊) There were other empires in India which came under the rule of the British first. Following are the empires that were there in India at the time of the British.
· Sikh Empire
· Maratha Empire
· Gorkha Empire
· Kingdom of Mysore.
Throughout his article he didn’t mention who came with the British to conquer the Sikh Empire, maybe he’s ashamed of that, or trying to blur that part of history so that the whole focus of the readers will be on the Sikhs.
Let me tell you this if you have not heard this. The Sikh Empire were conquered by the British with the help of Hindus and Muslims whose empires the British had already conquered, sometimes known as poorbias (eastern people of India.)
I remember an incident back in 1957, when 100-year of the ‘first war of independence’ was celebrated. Someone said that if Sikhs hadn’t helped the British, India would have got its independence in 1857. At that time, Dr Ganda Singh was in Punjabi University. Articles were published in The Tribune, a war of words, and so many known historians – actual historians, not some made-up storytellers like Ajit Vadakayil – like Dr R. C. Maujumdar, Sir Jadoo Naath, Dr Ganda Singh said that it’s never the war of independence as it’s taught to us in school.
The war of independence should be something that has a plan and leaders (Tantia Toppe, Jhansi di Raani, etc., will discuss them in more detail in some other post, but you can get to know about them why they joined the mutiny at the following link) to fight against a monarch.
In 1857, it was never the case. The mutiny started in Meerut on 10th May, 1857. The reason behind it wasn’t the independence but religious sentiments of Hindus and Muslims as ‘Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow.’
And there are the troops of Bahadur Shah, who said they wouldn’t fight without salaries. What kind of war of independence was it as they wanted to get paid for their services?
The ‘betrayal’ doesn’t even make sense at all. Sikhs were never disloyal to any other kingdom or promised that they would join the war against the British. Sikhs were never consulted for the 1857. What kind of betrayal are they saying it was? Just lies.
1857 is a very big discussion, if we are considering the role of Sikhs. Will write a completely different blog and put the link here in the future.
Following are what the researchers or historians said.
"I thought it necessary ... to counteract the current view that the outbreak of 1857 was the first national war of independence. I have
tried to show, with the help of details given, that it was neither 'first', nor 'National' nor 'a war of independence." - Dr R. C. Maujumdar
"Some Indians have written on the struggle in the early years of the century. If truth is to be told, we have to admit that the books
they have written are not history but mere political propaganda. These authors wanted to represent the uprising as a planned war of
independence organized by the nobility of India against British Government" - Maulana Abul Kalam Azad
Below is the link that you check to know more about 1857. Beware! You might read something that is not taught in your school books.
